Expanding generalized contrast-to-noise ratio into a clinically relevant measure of lesion detectability by considering size and spatial resolution.

IF 1.9 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Journal of Medical Imaging Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-23 DOI:10.1117/1.JMI.11.5.057001
Siegfried Schlunk, Brett Byram
{"title":"Expanding generalized contrast-to-noise ratio into a clinically relevant measure of lesion detectability by considering size and spatial resolution.","authors":"Siegfried Schlunk, Brett Byram","doi":"10.1117/1.JMI.11.5.057001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Early image quality metrics were often designed with clinicians in mind, and ideal metrics would correlate with the subjective opinion of practitioners. Over time, adaptive beamformers and other post-processing methods have become more common, and these newer methods often violate assumptions of earlier image quality metrics, invalidating the meaning of those metrics. The result is that beamformers may \"manipulate\" metrics without producing more clinical information.</p><p><strong>Approach: </strong>In this work, Smith et al.'s signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) metric for lesion detectability is considered, and a more robust version, here called generalized SNR (gSNR), is proposed that uses generalized contrast-to-noise ratio (gCNR) as a core. It is analytically shown that for Rayleigh distributed data, gCNR is a function of Smith et al.'s <math> <mrow><msub><mi>C</mi> <mi>ψ</mi></msub> </mrow> </math> (and therefore can be used as a substitution). More robust methods for estimating the resolution cell size are considered. Simulated lesions are included to verify the equations and demonstrate behavior, and it is shown to apply equally well to <i>in vivo</i> data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>gSNR is shown to be equivalent to SNR for delay-and-sum (DAS) beamformed data, as intended. However, it is shown to be more robust against transformations and report lesion detectability more accurately for non-Rayleigh distributed data. In the simulation included, the SNR of DAS was <math><mrow><mn>4.4</mn> <mo>±</mo> <mn>0.8</mn></mrow> </math> , and minimum variance (MV) was <math><mrow><mn>6.4</mn> <mo>±</mo> <mn>1.9</mn></mrow> </math> , but the gSNR of DAS was <math><mrow><mn>4.5</mn> <mo>±</mo> <mn>0.9</mn></mrow> </math> , and MV was <math><mrow><mn>3.0</mn> <mo>±</mo> <mn>0.9</mn></mrow> </math> , which agrees with the subjective assessment of the image. Likewise, the <math> <mrow><msup><mi>DAS</mi> <mn>2</mn></msup> </mrow> </math> transformation (which is clinically identical to DAS) had an incorrect SNR of <math><mrow><mn>9.4</mn> <mo>±</mo> <mn>1.0</mn></mrow> </math> and a correct gSNR of <math><mrow><mn>4.4</mn> <mo>±</mo> <mn>0.9</mn></mrow> </math> . Similar results are shown <i>in vivo</i>.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Using gCNR as a component to estimate gSNR creates a robust measure of lesion detectability. Like SNR, gSNR can be compared with the Rose criterion and may better correlate with clinical assessments of image quality for modern beamformers.</p>","PeriodicalId":47707,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Imaging","volume":"11 5","pages":"057001"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11498315/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JMI.11.5.057001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Early image quality metrics were often designed with clinicians in mind, and ideal metrics would correlate with the subjective opinion of practitioners. Over time, adaptive beamformers and other post-processing methods have become more common, and these newer methods often violate assumptions of earlier image quality metrics, invalidating the meaning of those metrics. The result is that beamformers may "manipulate" metrics without producing more clinical information.

Approach: In this work, Smith et al.'s signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) metric for lesion detectability is considered, and a more robust version, here called generalized SNR (gSNR), is proposed that uses generalized contrast-to-noise ratio (gCNR) as a core. It is analytically shown that for Rayleigh distributed data, gCNR is a function of Smith et al.'s C ψ (and therefore can be used as a substitution). More robust methods for estimating the resolution cell size are considered. Simulated lesions are included to verify the equations and demonstrate behavior, and it is shown to apply equally well to in vivo data.

Results: gSNR is shown to be equivalent to SNR for delay-and-sum (DAS) beamformed data, as intended. However, it is shown to be more robust against transformations and report lesion detectability more accurately for non-Rayleigh distributed data. In the simulation included, the SNR of DAS was 4.4 ± 0.8 , and minimum variance (MV) was 6.4 ± 1.9 , but the gSNR of DAS was 4.5 ± 0.9 , and MV was 3.0 ± 0.9 , which agrees with the subjective assessment of the image. Likewise, the DAS 2 transformation (which is clinically identical to DAS) had an incorrect SNR of 9.4 ± 1.0 and a correct gSNR of 4.4 ± 0.9 . Similar results are shown in vivo.

Conclusions: Using gCNR as a component to estimate gSNR creates a robust measure of lesion detectability. Like SNR, gSNR can be compared with the Rose criterion and may better correlate with clinical assessments of image quality for modern beamformers.

通过考虑大小和空间分辨率,将广义对比度与噪声比扩展为一种与临床相关的病变可探测性测量方法。
目的:早期的图像质量指标通常是以临床医生为中心设计的,理想的指标与医生的主观意见相关。随着时间的推移,自适应波束成形器和其他后处理方法变得越来越普遍,而这些新方法往往违反了早期图像质量指标的假设,使这些指标的意义失效。其结果是,波束成形器可能会 "操纵 "指标,而不会产生更多临床信息:在这项工作中,考虑了 Smith 等人的信噪比(SNR)病变可探测性指标,并提出了一个更稳健的版本,这里称为广义信噪比(gSNR),它以广义对比度-噪声比(gCNR)为核心。分析表明,对于瑞利分布数据,gCNR 是 Smith 等人的 C ψ 的函数(因此可用作替代)。我们还考虑了估算分辨单元大小的更稳健的方法。结果表明,gSNR 与延迟和(DAS)波束成形数据的信噪比相当。然而,对于非瑞利分布式数据,gSNR 对变换具有更强的鲁棒性,并能更准确地报告病变可探测性。在模拟中,DAS 的 SNR 为 4.4 ± 0.8,最小方差 (MV) 为 6.4 ± 1.9,但 DAS 的 gSNR 为 4.5 ± 0.9,MV 为 3.0 ± 0.9,这与图像的主观评估一致。同样,DAS 2 转换(临床上与 DAS 相同)的不正确 SNR 为 9.4 ± 1.0,而正确的 gSNR 为 4.4 ± 0.9。类似的结果在体内也有显示:结论:使用 gCNR 作为估算 gSNR 的一个组成部分,可以稳健地衡量病变的可探测性。与信噪比一样,gSNR 也可以与罗斯标准进行比较,并能更好地与临床评估现代波束成形器的图像质量相关联。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Medical Imaging
Journal of Medical Imaging RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
4.20%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: JMI covers fundamental and translational research, as well as applications, focused on medical imaging, which continue to yield physical and biomedical advancements in the early detection, diagnostics, and therapy of disease as well as in the understanding of normal. The scope of JMI includes: Imaging physics, Tomographic reconstruction algorithms (such as those in CT and MRI), Image processing and deep learning, Computer-aided diagnosis and quantitative image analysis, Visualization and modeling, Picture archiving and communications systems (PACS), Image perception and observer performance, Technology assessment, Ultrasonic imaging, Image-guided procedures, Digital pathology, Biomedical applications of biomedical imaging. JMI allows for the peer-reviewed communication and archiving of scientific developments, translational and clinical applications, reviews, and recommendations for the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信